miserableoldgit Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 Equally, some might argue without Crouch's perverse meddling at times, the whole sorry saga of the past 3 years may not have happened. The only benefit we have achieved is that we are now a club without debt but one with seemingly no money to spend until such time the club can show it can generate it's own finance. Futhermore, any influence we may have had over the club is gone other than the usual voting with feet which thankfully is not going to happen if the ST sales are a guide to decent attendances in the long run. Crouch is a dinosaur as are his methods and one who apparently still believes that throwing his money around will cure all ills. Crouch should be thanked for our future no more than we should offer thanks to Lowe or Mchameleon and Andrew Oldknow is the man whose contribution we have really overlooked as custodian of our future. The real issue is can those jumped up alleged ITK's cope with a club run as a competent commercial enterprise and one whose soul aim is to generate a business that is self sufficient and largely secretive. A business that can be run without any contribution from directors whose ego's are allegedly bigger than their financial acumen? The club can only improve without the 'look at me' types of Lowe and Crouch and their close 'friends'. Asking for them to purchase a ticket is IMO as much to do with burying the hatchet of the past as recognising the need for them to pay for their past contributions. Concessions need not apply in these instances. What a particularly one-sided, and may I say, blinkered view. I agree that Crouch has his faults and undoubtedly played a part in the whole sorry saga that has been SFC over the last few years, but to indicate that he was the biggest cause of the problems is ridiculous. None of us know how things would have turned out if he had supported Lowe instead of (Saints Go) Wilde but I suspect that whilst the road may have been different, the destination would have still been the same, after all, the root of our problems was relegation from the Prem. As for Crouch "throwing his money around", we should be glad that he did because without it we wouldn`t hae a club. I didn`t see many of the other members of "the Bash Street Kids" hanging around and/or putting ther hands in their pockets. It`s amazing that on this forum you are either a Hero or a Zero - there never seems to be any middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 Can`t understand why 19C hasn`t appeared on this thread. Red rag to a bull I would have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 Can`t understand why 19C hasn`t appeared on this thread. Red rag to a bull I would have thought. He has............you've just quoted him!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 On the day the new owner appoints our new Chairman, all our supporters can do is harp on about the relicts of Crouch, Lowe, from the past. When oh when is the past going to be buried and we supporters move on. I thought Duncan's promotion of Pinnacle as the new scapegoat a start, but not a soul has bothered to announce the new Executive Chairman's appointment. Well done all those who harp on and on about the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughnutman Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 On the day the new owner appoints our new Chairman, all our supporters can do is harp on about the relicts of Crouch, Lowe, from the past. When oh when is the past going to be buried and we supporters move on. I thought Duncan's promotion of Pinnacle as the new scapegoat a start, but not a soul has bothered to announce the new Executive Chairman's appointment. Well done all those who harp on and on about the past. Cortese? Not a major surprise to be honest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 On the day the new owner appoints our new Chairman, all our supporters can do is harp on about the relicts of Crouch, Lowe, from the past. When oh when is the past going to be buried and we supporters move on. I thought Duncan's promotion of Pinnacle as the new scapegoat a start, but not a soul has bothered to announce the new Executive Chairman's appointment. Well done all those who harp on and on about the past. I agree with what you say, it`s just that Crouch isn`t really the past. It is only a few weeks ago that him "throwing his money around" kept us alive. He doesn`t deserve a lot of the bile being directed at him. As far as I am concerned Lowe, Wilde et al are as far in the past as the caveman but Crouch is still here, albeit not in an official capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 I was speaking to an ex Director who agreed with me that Crouch's judgement, when it came to Saints, was badly flawed but without his close season "investment" we would not have a club to support. Just imagine that having having paid the money for that months wages, there was no exclusion of any party and Pinnacle would be none the different? Without doubt we would have a lot more time to prepare for this season, availability of the free's Pardew so much sought and a high possibility DMG would still be here. You can easily see a case for this locking us into this league for an extra season? Crouch has an undoubted passion for Saints, generous but with caveats that can be insurmountable. If you look at everything that Crouch has done, you just shake your head in amazement of what could be done with limited intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 You are 12 years old and you have daughters?!!:shock: Are you sure that you don`t live in P**tsmouth?? I started, when I was seven and a quarter;) I always thought it was Portsmiff:smt093 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 Equally, some might argue without Crouch's perverse meddling at times, the whole sorry saga of the past 3 years may not have happened. The only benefit we have achieved is that we are now a club without debt but one with seemingly no money to spend until such time the club can show it can generate it's own finance. Futhermore, any influence we may have had over the club is gone other than the usual voting with feet which thankfully is not going to happen if the ST sales are a guide to decent attendances in the long run. Crouch is a dinosaur as are his methods and one who apparently still believes that throwing his money around will cure all ills. Crouch should be thanked for our future no more than we should offer thanks to Lowe or Mchameleon and Andrew Oldknow is the man whose contribution we have really overlooked as custodian of our future. The real issue is can those jumped up alleged ITK's cope with a club run as a competent commercial enterprise and one whose soul aim is to generate a business that is self sufficient and largely secretive. A business that can be run without any contribution from directors whose ego's are allegedly bigger than their financial acumen? The club can only improve without the 'look at me' types of Lowe and Crouch and their close 'friends'. Asking for them to purchase a ticket is IMO as much to do with burying the hatchet of the past as recognising the need for them to pay for their past contributions. Concessions need not apply in these instances. Again the thing that really annoys me about posts like this is the lack of the words Rupert Lowe or Michael Wilde. It's certainly valid to criticise Crouch for his approach to the club and his way of dealing with things but let's not forget that the primary instigators of the demise of the club were Lowe and Wilde. Lowe, whose meddling got us relegated... twice. And Wilde who upset the applecart, promised much, delivered nothing. You can say Crouch has now hitched his wagon to two very flawed plans for the club but that's about it really. His brief tenure as chairman wasn't a complete failure, neither was it a complete success, it was decidedly unremarkable. The one thing that annoys me so much is the way that Crouch is painted as this great failure and Lowe and Wilde are almost painted out of the picture. At least Crouch has made amends and redressed the balance. Has either Lowe or Wilde made so much as peep when the club faced complete ruin? Put their hand into their pocket so much as once? Nothing. Wilde has done his usual thing of saying absolutely nothing and being virtually invisible and Lowe has denied any wrong doing and blames everyone else. I seriously think that Lowe and Wilde aren't mentioned by Crouch's critics as they're indefinsible. This non stop bitiching and sniping at Crouch is just a smokescreen to cover the three real villains in that piece. It shows a worrying lack of grace that protagonists just can't say anything nice about a person they've spent the last two years salgging off. Yes he made mistakes, yes he was culpable (but nowhere near as much as Lowe/Wilde and Askham) but his dedication to the club at the end probably helped save it.... whilst Lowe and Wilde did nothing.. and that is the most telling indication of guilt possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 Just imagine that having having paid the money for that months wages, there was no exclusion of any party and Pinnacle would be none the different? Without doubt we would have a lot more time to prepare for this season, availability of the free's Pardew so much sought and a high possibility DMG would still be here. You can easily see a case for this locking us into this league for an extra season? Crouch has an undoubted passion for Saints, generous but with caveats that can be insurmountable. If you look at everything that Crouch has done, you just shake your head in amazement of what could be done with limited intelligence. uppy.......You really must let this Lowey love in cease:smt060 It will consume you and turn you into a naughty little poster:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 3 August, 2009 Share Posted 3 August, 2009 Again the thing that really annoys me about posts like this is the lack of the words Rupert Lowe or Michael Wilde. It's certainly valid to criticise Crouch for his approach to the club and his way of dealing with things but let's not forget that the primary instigators of the demise of the club were Lowe and Wilde. Lowe, whose meddling got us relegated... twice. And Wilde who upset the applecart, promised much, delivered nothing. You can say Crouch has now hitched his wagon to two very flawed plans for the club but that's about it really. His brief tenure as chairman wasn't a complete failure, neither was it a complete success, it was decidedly unremarkable. The one thing that annoys me so much is the way that Crouch is painted as this great failure and Lowe and Wilde are almost painted out of the picture. At least Crouch has made amends and redressed the balance. Has either Lowe or Wilde made so much as peep when the club faced complete ruin? Put their hand into their pocket so much as once? Nothing. Wilde has done his usual thing of saying absolutely nothing and being virtually invisible and Lowe has denied any wrong doing and blames everyone else. I seriously think that Lowe and Wilde aren't mentioned by Crouch's critics as they're indefinsible. This non stop bitiching and sniping at Crouch is just a smokescreen to cover the three real villains in that piece. It shows a worrying lack of grace that protagonists just can't say anything nice about a person they've spent the last two years salgging off. Yes he made mistakes, yes he was culpable (but nowhere near as much as Lowe/Wilde and Askham) but his dedication to the club at the end probably helped save it.... whilst Lowe and Wilde did nothing.. and that is the most telling indication of guilt possible... I would totally agree with what you say with respect to not mentioning Wilde and Lowe and focussing on Crouch, but to be fair, there is a kind of clue in the thread title... ;-) I think everyone acknowledges that Crouch deserves credit for his personal financial support of the club in its darkest hours, which we have not seen from Lowe or Wilde. I think though that many on here who have an 'issue' with Crouch, are influenced by those that post that he could do no wrong? The problem with this is when we try and analyse mistakes made in the past is that it is often TOO difficult to separate the personalities from the errors of judgement, so we see rigorous defending or outright attack rather than a balanced assessment of the pros and cons. Crouch is a tricky one, we know he is passionate and generous - two great traits from which the club has benefitted - but he also fell into the ego trap (something that must be hideously difficult to avoid - I know I would find it difficult not to have my head turned by being in such a position) - I think there was certainly an element of 'wanting' to be loved by fans - afterall we never had any official confirmations of the genorosity often only leaked speculation - was it gifts or loans? etc and when you do look at those he backed, it could be 'suggested' that the horse he backed were those that maybe guarranteed him a greater role in future, rather than what was perhaps the best choice for the club? - I only suggest this because one of the biggest criticisms of Lowe and Wilde (and in many cases whollyjustified) is that they only made decisons for what was in it for themselves... In all cases Lowe, Wilde and Crouch the self interset manifested itself in different ways IMHO. Lowe, seemed to be obsessed with proving he was right- that he had the 'brains' to see that football could be managed in a different way to the old school. I think he disliked the traditional over reliance, as he saw it, on managers - who could come in spend loads on failures, then leave and the whole merrygoround started again - hense IMHO his desire to see changes in the set up - his ego meant he would stick it out until it was often too late and we have seen where that led us... I have often defended the ideal of looking at things differently, challenging the status quo and the accepted principles - because the accepted principles will no longer allow a small club to progress without substantial investment or heavy debt, unlike the days of Forest or even Saints in the early 80s... so naturally, I will still say the ideas were not bad, but ego driven execution meant poor implementation and ultimately failure. Wilde seemed a strange one when he first arrived on the scene. I remember well the grief because a few of us dared to challenge the fact that apart from a few platitudes there seemed no substance in his approach - empty promises but silver tongue that had fans spellbound to 'go wilde' for a few months... I can only summise that his interest lay primarily in a development opportunity - property and land that may well have led to a new revenue stream for the club long term as a positive benefit, but maybe a good opportunity for his business? That is naturally speculation, based on opinion, as when I met him, he seemed passionate and concerned by our fate, genuine in fact, and prepared to risk the wrath of fans by getting into bed with Lowe for the 'good of the club'. I guess I would just love to know his true motivation. I say that because if it was recognising a commercial opportunity that would provide him and his property development business a substantial income, but at the same time provide Saints with a decent long term revenue stream, I would have had NO problem with that - smaller clubs need to maximise the assets that they have and generate as much revenue from alternative sources as possible... i just wish there was an attitude that would have been receptive to such honesty (if this was indeed true) rather than perhaps the negativity many fans sling at 'business' in football. Crouch was kind of covered above. I think much of the criticism aimed at him, is actually more accurately criticism aimed at those who seemed to cannonise him completely, as if he is the only 'saint' in all this, yet his naiviety perhaps did seem to land him in trouble; shooting from the hip, agreeing to the spending, then falling out with Wilde, the comments re the PLC set up on live radio and finally backing the wrong horse. I dont think any of the 3 amigos are evil or deserve some of the grief they get, even the greatest 'evildoer' mr lowe, because I think they all in theiir own way wanted to see us successful... just had rather odd approaches to how to achieve it... It is perhaps ironic though, that given that the biggest criticism of Lowe was his bringing of business first rather than football first to the club, that we now have new owners and a new chairman who has stated the same and whose background in in banking... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speculator Posted 4 August, 2009 Share Posted 4 August, 2009 On the day the new owner appoints our new Chairman, all our supporters can do is harp on about the relicts of Crouch, Lowe, from the past. When oh when is the past going to be buried and we supporters move on. I thought Duncan's promotion of Pinnacle as the new scapegoat a start, but not a soul has bothered to announce the new Executive Chairman's appointment. Well done all those who harp on and on about the past. The past will take a while to be buried as the cartel of ITK's and private members club that operates on this forum will get use to the idea that they cannot influence the future but merely accept Mr Liebherr's direction. They can however continue to be all knowing and defensive of their past positions. The PLC had it's faults but the ability to own a part of the club and thereby influence or change it's direction was perhasp not one of them and we are now merely sitting tennants to the whim of a powerful individual and my guess Art is that will take a period of adjustment for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisobee Posted 4 August, 2009 Share Posted 4 August, 2009 TBH the very 1st post said all that needs saying, the rest is just argumentative and speculative tosh. It's very simple from what I ( as a non ITK'er or member of any club) can see, Crouch Wilde and Lowe all made mistakes. However, whilst Lowe and Wilde cared not a damn and just ran for the hills Crouch stood by us and bailed us out of a massive hole and for that alone he can be forgiven any perceived mistakes he made as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 4 August, 2009 Share Posted 4 August, 2009 Would I be right in thinking Lowe, Wilde et al walked away with nothing from the sham of their regime? It would be nice to see what they are doing now, just to make sure they are absolutely nothing to do with our club!! I know they have gone, just had an icy shiver come over me for a second! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leehoudini Posted 4 August, 2009 Share Posted 4 August, 2009 Would I be right in thinking Lowe, Wilde et al walked away with nothing from the sham of their regime? It would be nice to see what they are doing now, just to make sure they are absolutely nothing to do with our club!! I know they have gone, just had an icy shiver come over me for a second! Forget about them and move on. Some people just wont let go. Can't you find an ex lover to stalk instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now